Proof of Immortality II

[Aepervius]

Jabba Let me give you an example of emergent process.

Here is conway game of life : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

The rules are pretty damn simple :
(cell is here meant as in black pixel - nothing biological)
* Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
* Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
* Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
* Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.


And yet it makes for *EMERGENT* cellular automata :

This is what an emergent process is. From a set of rules, a process which emerge from it, but is not described as such in the rules.

Consciousness is exactly like that : it is just a chemical set of interaction which has an emergent apparent behavior. But the reality is that it is fully using and obeying the set of rules we know about biology and chemistry. Just like conway game of life automata are all obeying the same set of 4 basics rules and are without specially added soul or whatever magic

Are you getting it ? You are searching for additional "rules" making a soul or whatever, but there is NONE.

 

[Aepervius]

Funnily enough I think this was mentionned already 5 times in the previous threads.
i get better feedback and udnerstanding from talking to my cats.

 

[Jabba]

- The first glass of milk is white, while the second glass of milk is brown. There is a cause for the difference -- chocolate was added to the second glass of milk.
- There has to be a cause for the difference between the SELVES produced by two identical brains.

Yes there is, and it's a simple one: the brains are different. They're not the same brain, so they're different brains, so they produce different SELVES.

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

 

[John Jones]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

Not even after 2 years. Biochemistry is a subset of physics, so you have ceated a false dichotomy.

Are you ever going to get back on track?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

As I am sure that others will tell you, biochemistry is part of physics. No, you are not getting any warmer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So has Jabba yet acknowledged that the current mortality rate for the human species has been holding at a steady 100% since the beginning of the species?

Which puts a rather solid damper on his theory.

 

[godless dave]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

While we wait for xtifr, I just want to point out that the difference between two identical selves would have the same cause as the difference between two identical glasses of white milk.

 

[Loss Leader]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

Nope.

 

[Jabba]

Exactly. The physics includes the biochemistry, so if we look at the physics, we'll still be looking at the biochemistry!

xt,
- So far, I don't see it that way. Sure, the physics includes all the biochemistry, but the biochemistry does not include all the physics, and the causal differential comes from the physics outside of the biochemistry.

 

[carlitos]

I say tomato, you say tomato. How many tomatoes?

ETA - Jabba, replying to only one person in an internet forum is about the most *********** rude thing I've ever seen. You have a set of balls on you for sure. Please consider emailing a friend about your musings instead of posting here.

 

[Mojo]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics.

What is the difference between identical items?

- Am I getting warm?

No.

 

[Slowvehicle]

xt,
- So far, I don't see it that way. Sure, the physics includes all the biochemistry, but the biochemistry does not include all the physics, and the causal differential comes from the physics outside of the biochemistry.

[/thread]

 

[godless dave]

I think I understand what Jabba is saying. The causal difference is in the steps that led up to the original self and the duplicate self existing. Those are the steps you would need to for calculations of likelihood. But I still don't see how you would get 1/infinity for either one.

I think I discussed this here:

Each brain would have a series of events that led up to it coming into existence, ultimately going back to the beginning of the universe, so actually calculating the likelihood of a particular brain coming into existence would not be practical. That doesn't mean you can declare the likelihood to be 1/∞.

For the first brain, the "physical formula" includes a particular sperm and egg meeting and combining their DNA, with all the variables both those things entail. Then the embryo would develop in the womb, with all the variables that entails.

In the third week of development the embryo would have the beginnings of what will become its brain. A good overview of this is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development#Overview_of_brain_development

This is the part of the new human that will eventually have what we are calling the sense of self. The brain starts to do what we call thinking and by some time has formed the concept that exists distinctly from everything around it. You could take the whole series of events that led to this point in time and space and try to calculate the likelihood of it happening in exactly this way.

With me so far?

Now, we can imagine some distant science fiction future where someone found a way to replicate exactly the conditions that led to the existence of a particular human. If they did so, you could take all the events that led to the creation of the original and all the events that led up to the creation of the copy, and try to calculate the likelihood of the second event happening. If you've developed the capability of duplicating humans I suppose you would probably also have developed computers capable of doing calculations like that.

In which case, you would calculate a likelihood that would not be 1/∞.

 

[John Jones]

xt,
- So far, I don't see [...]

Obviously.

 

[Mojo]

I think I understand what Jabba is saying. The causal difference is in the steps that led up to the original self and the duplicate self existing.

The problem with this being that the self is not an actual thing that is somehow produced by the brain and can then be modified by the brain's experiences; it is a process, and results from the state of the brain at the particular moment. If two brains could somehow be in completely identical states, they would produce completely identical selves, no matter how those brains had arrived at those states.

Jabba's argument relies on consciousness being a thing rather than a process.

 

[Giordano]

xt,
- So far, I don't see it that way. Sure, the physics includes all the biochemistry, but the biochemistry does not include all the physics, and the causal differential comes from the physics outside of the biochemistry.

First part: simple for you, having been certified in statistics:
A is a a subset of B. All A is also B, but not all B need also be A.

A example: red circles are a subset of circles. All red circles are circles, but not all circles are red. Biochemistry is a subset of ("comes from" or "includes") physics but not all physics is a subset of ("comes from" or "includes") biochemistry.

 

[godless dave]

The problem with this being that the self is not an actual thing that is somehow produced by the brain and can then be modified by the brain's experiences; it is a process, and results from the state of the brain at the particular moment. If two brains could somehow be in completely identical states, they would produce completely identical selves, no matter how those brains had arrived at those states.

Jabba's argument relies on consciousness being a thing rather than a process.

I think that even if we consider consciousness a thing, his argument would still fail.

 

[John Jones]

xt,
- So far, I don't see it that way. Sure, the physics includes all the biochemistry, but the biochemistry does not include all the physics, and the causal differential comes from the physics outside of the biochemistry.

Can you state the physics involved as an equation, or as a recognized law or theory?

For example: Mortality (or the soul) is real because the acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.8 meters/sec², and Einstein's theory of special relativity says...

Or did you make a false appeal to physics to obfuscate your point.

 

[Giordano]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

Just to clairfy (not that Jabba will read this): You were wrong to include your post about the white and brown glasses of milk in this post: the difference between your white and brown glasses of milk is both chemical and location. But if you meant the difference between two "exactly duplicated people" then, by definition, their brain biochemistry must be exact duplicates (at least at time = 0). So their "sense of selfs" would be exact duplicates at the time of duplication, according to the SM. In the case of exactly duplicated brains, then the main difference between the two would be location (an aspect usually considered part of physics). Yes, there are other, more subtle philosophical aspects: what if the exactly duplicated Jabbas alternatively occupied the same location at different times? (I would argue that time is a coordinate just like location, so they are still different in physical coordinates, but not in biochemistry (until they experience enough different things to diverge biochemically)).

But:
1. Stop with the duplication idea because it is leading you seriously astray, and can't be done in any case right now to test the result.

2. If you insist on continuing with this flawed analogy, just image you exactly duplicated the Mona Lisa. You would have two, but they are not "the same" painting because they must be in two locations. They will have identical paint chemistry, canvas chemistry, and brush stroke. They are not the same, yet they do not have conscious selves. Any difference between the two is not due to some non-physical bar coding. Same with people's sense of self.

 

[Monza]

So has Jabba yet acknowledged that the current mortality rate for the human species has been holding at a steady 100% since the beginning of the species?

Which puts a rather solid damper on his theory.

Well, for what it's worth I plan on being immortal.

Goal: To live forever.
Progress: So far, so good.